U.S. Court Judges Confess to Bias in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Case
Three federal judges admit to being biased in favor of a government agency when granting a landmark decision in favor of caps and taxes on “greenhouse gas” emissions. Court rules Earth’s atmosphere does act like a greenhouse after all.
In a shock landmark decision (June 26, 2012) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit throws out a key pro-industry petition challenging restrictions on industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called the ruling a “strong validation” of the approach the agency has taken.
The 81-page decision affirms that on the science of man-made global warming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the one and only arbiter when a case goes to trial. Completely taking the EPA’s word on the science, the court was satisfied that “greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.”As such, say the judges, the EPA is not contravening the Clean Air Act by radically limiting industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
Judges Admit Bias In Favor of EPA Alarmism
Despite the gravity of the case, this landmark decision all three judges involved admit to holding “bias” in favor of the federal agency on the science. The court panel admits, “we give an extreme degree of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise.” Crassly, the court further decided that Earth’s atmosphere does act “like a greenhouse.”
This breathtaking ruling is set to trigger a backlash among opponents of crippling new environmental regulations because all U.S. courts will be required to recognize the EPA has ultimate “technical expertise” in such matters. As such President Obama has gotten his rubber stamp for more climate taxes and more junk science on the public dole.
The findings have caught skeptics of man-made global warming off guard at a time when they were still rejoicing at the collapse the Rio+20 Climate Summit last week.
The EPA now has the legal green light to pursue those related environmental policies of President Obama. Obama, up for re-election later this year, already failed to drive carbon dioxide (CO2) limiting legislation through Congress earlier in his presidency. Now he has succeeded by other means via the EPA regulations that had previously determined CO2 is a “pollutant” via the Clean Air Act.
On Page 16 the Decision reads, “We begin with a brief primer on greenhouse gases. As their name suggests, when released into the atmosphere, these gases act “like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat.”
Repeatedly, the judges employed direct citations from the prior related judgments going back to 2007, including Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 505. Such citations were a turgid regurgitation of hackneyed and outmoded alarmist claims repeated in this august law court. As such, the illusion of a consensus obtained it’s legal gloss: “Many scientists believe that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are driving this climate change.”
The “many scientists” appears to be a reference to 53 authority statements explicitly declaring Earth’s atmosphere “acts like a greenhouse” as peddled by those (government-funded) institutions that have long conspired in the GHE warming scam as shown here.
The defeated petitioners had argued (rightly) that the Act allows only endangerment issues and cannot be misused by governments to advance government policy. The petitioners are formed as a consortium of business interests identified as the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. et al. But (according to the court) the petitioners were defeated because the court did not find that the EPA were using the Clean Air Act for policy purposes.
But the ruling opens up a can of worms, not just for the EPA but for the federal government as a whole because of the glaring weakness in the science presented. Of no import in these proceedings was how 400,000 years of Vostok ice core data and three decades of satellite records prove carbon dioxide cannot be shown to drive Earth’s temperatures.
Increasingly, leading climatologists and dozens of other specialist scientists are proving that “gas does not equal glass” and thus discrediting the EPA’s position about “greenhouse” science. But the court stated that references to skeptic science constituted “ a semantic trick” because the federal court follows federally (tax payer) bought and paid for science.
Despite a mounting array of real-world evidence proving that rising levels of CO2 are not causing rises in temperatures the U.S. government continues apace with it’s revisionism of the history of radiation and the false greenhouse heat trapping paradigm.
Such contentious attributions to a trace beneficial gas might seem reasonable within the realms of climatology but are inexplicable to those from the traditional biological and chemical sciences. Even your average high school student can correctly identify that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a mere 0.04 percent and is thus correctly termed a trace gas.
But the debate was never allowed to range outside the closed shop of climatology, an infant field comprised of Earth scientists (aka Environmental scientists) perceived as less academically gifted in the pure sciences of physics, chemistry and medicine.
Thousands of leaked emails from the Climategate scandal revealed to all just what a closed shop climatology truly is (no doubt mirrored by the self-serving attitude of EPA “expertise”). Woefully inept (perhaps even corrupt) in its handling and preservation of raw data climate scientists have not been able to perform one single test to replicate their claims for their GHE hypothesis. While the gang mentality exposed in the emails pointed to bullying and coercion of those scientists and academic reviewers in a flawed self-serving peer-reviewing system.
Climategate triggered an outpouring of dissent from traditional scientists keenly aware that government researchers were not playing by the rules. As more interest was taking in climate change among those trained in the “hard” sciences thus organized dissent ensued within those professions. In the three years since Climategate the “settled science” of man-made global warming is more uncertain than ever as a growing mass of independent scientists rally to declare that humans exhale CO2 as the normal process of exhalation thus confounding the classification as a “pollutant” both on grounds of toxicity and concentration.
The EPA looks increasingly foolish as it clings onto the “Endangerment Finding” ruling under 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) which ruled carbon dioxide was an “air pollutant” and thus a “long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gas…which is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.”